• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!

Big Sky Mens BB Preview

This is what I think:

1. Weber State
2. UND
3. Montana
4. Idaho
5. Idaho State
6. Eastern Washington
7. Montana State
8. Sacramento State
9. Northern Arizona
10. Portland State
11. Southern Utah
12. Northern Colorado
 
talhadfoursteals said:
This is what I think:

1. Weber State
2. UND
3. Montana
4. Idaho
5. Idaho State
6. Eastern Washington
7. Montana State
8. Sacramento State
9. Northern Arizona
10. Portland State
11. Southern Utah
12. Northern Colorado
Click to expand...
I can buy that only if UM is unable to turn teams over at a high enough rate to overcome poor rebounding. If UM's rebounding is even close to average, I don't see UND beating them out. I don't think that UND's rebounding will be stellar either. UI's rebounding and defense was good last year and they have most of that coming back. UI signed a JC scorer. That may push them up in the standings. ISU also had some significant additions that have the potential to move them up. I'm just hoping that they all just beat each other up before they play us. :lol:
 
BIG SKY BASKETBALL LEAVES A LOT TO BE DESIRED!!

CBS Sports recently ranked all 351 Division 1 basketball teams. The Big Sky Conference's 12 teams had an average ranking of #257 of the 351 teams. In other terms they are better than only 27% of all teams and 73% of all teams are better than the Big Sky teams. I have often used the term "little puddle" when describing Big Sky basketball, and this years teams seems to fit the bill again.

The good news is that WSU is ranked #128 or in the top 36% of all teams, the best in the Sky. The Sky has no teams ranked in the top 100; two teams ranked between 100-200, (WSU & UofM); six teams ranked between 200-300, (Idaho, UND, ISU, MSU, PSU & EWU); and four teams ranked between 300-351 (SAC ST., NAU, SUU & UNC).

To ever have the possibility of having more than one team in the NCAA's the Sky has to rank higher than an average of 257th. Their worse teams need to be ranked between 200-300 with none in the bottom 51. Their mid-range teams need to be between 100-200 and their best teams need to be somewhere in the top 100 ranking if they are ever to be considered for more than one spot in the playoffs. It ain't going to happen in our lifetimes. In fact, I think the Sky has been losing, not gaining ground in the past decade.

That leaves Weber and Montana on an island by themselves. Big fish in a small puddle! Both should be pushing to be the second coming of Gonzaga. To do that Weber must, not necessarily in this order but: (1) Change their attitude that being the big fish in the puddle is good enough. (2) Build a quality OOC schedule involving going on the road initially to play anyone in the Top 100. (3) Use this scheduling and going to the NCAA's to recruit all 3+ star athletes. (4) schedule a couple of top notch teams into the Dee each year, (pay'em). (5) in playing one or two early season patsies upgrade the quality of the patsies. Dixie and Westminster would be a huge upgrade over what they have been doing, but I guess that makes too much sense. (6) Take scheduling out of the hands of our Stu Morrill clone. While Stu is considered by most in Utah as a great coach, and had a great won/loss record, he rarely played anyone. In other words he was happy to be the big fish in a puddle. This approach got him nowhere in the NCAA's. It does the same for Weber.

Come on Big Sky schools, and especially WSU, grow some canoes! Raise you sights, shoot for the moon! Build a national quality program that is willing to go up against anyone... The support for a team like this at WSU would be off the charts in attendance and financial support.
 
"Take scheduling out of the hands of our Stu Morrill clone. While Stu is considered by most in Utah as a great coach, and had a great won/loss record, he rarely played anyone. In other words he was happy to be the big fish in a puddle. This approach got him nowhere in the NCAA's. It does the same for Weber."

I hadn't thought of Bovee in that manner. I appreciate the viewpoint as I constantly bickered with Aggie fans that Stew was a mirage because of his poor scheduling (he wasn't as good as his record might indicate). I think Koach Koward is creating the same illusion. Not sure I see Rahe in the same light as we do go out and play in the preseason (Alaska Shootout this year) which is more than the Aggies ever did (or the team in SLC is doing). Alaska tourney, Pepperdine, Stanford, BYU and USU make up a very good preseason road schedule. But we are left with little at home. Denver should be good, UVU is a growing rivalry game, but one more decent opponent (beside Antelope and WC Baptist) would have gone a long way in improving the overall schedule. But I do get your point baller. Recruiting seems to be on the upswing and I agree that scheduling needs to follow, especially home games. Our reputation will never get solidified (and our NCAA tournament position that goes with that) without beating some decent preseason opponents. And we can't beat them if we don't schedule them.
 
Valid points made, baller & utahpirate...I think there was some half-hearted effort made by the conference office in the past to encourage all BSC teams to improve their SOS...hope the new commish will push that even moreso. Sure it's not easy, but it will add some water to grow from the "puddle" to at least a "pond". :-D

I'm pretty confident, though, that I'll never see a Gonzaga second coming as far as the WSU Wildcats...nor likely will the young-'uns posting on this forum! :)
 
Longtimecat said:
Does little puddle mean the same as little sky, I ask cause I've heard that from another Weber State fan.
Click to expand...
I prefer the Big Suck. Outside of Weber and UM, conference schools do not have the resources or the commitment to improve their basketball programs, and I at times even question Weber's level of commitment. With the conference as bad as it is, any conversation of improving Weber's program has to at least involve conference affiliation. Success comes from the bottom up. I think Weber will always be limited in their success as long as they affiliate with a bad conference.
 
The Big Sky will constantly be ranked near the bottom until the NCAA makes some changes to scheduling. The Haves, who coincidentally are all in the top half, will play on average between 10-13 home games against a lot of lower ranked teams. The have nots, most Big Sky teams, will play 2-3 DI home games with the rest either on the road 6-8, or on a neutral court 2-3. It is really hard to end up with 10 wins in the OOC when you never get a chance to play home games. When you buy 10 games and then end up getting rewarded by the NCAA every year it makes things a bit lopsided. Also, there is a major bias against Western teams. I would love to see Weber get more games against DI Mid-Majors, but they won't play in Ogden and frankly we don't want to play at their places, unless we get a game from it. This is a bad situation and it is a major reason behind our consistent ranking near the bottom.
 
Alot of you constantly paint a very bleak picture of the big sky and of Webers scheduling. I personally like a stronger road schedule than a home one, tends to make a team tougher which as of late we have seen the benefits. Also some seem to think that leaving to another conference will help . Webers place is in the Big Sky just like Montana's . Personally I think Webers basketball program is in a very good place and seems to be progressing up. The football program as well.I apologize for sounding upbeat as this isn't the normal place for that.
 
SWeberCat02 said:
Longtimecat said:
Does little puddle mean the same as little sky, I ask cause I've heard that from another Weber State fan.
Click to expand...
I prefer the Big Suck. Outside of Weber and UM, conference schools do not have the resources or the commitment to improve their basketball programs, and I at times even question Weber's level of commitment. With the conference as bad as it is, any conversation of improving Weber's program has to at least involve conference affiliation. Success comes from the bottom up. I think Weber will always be limited in their success as long as they affiliate with a bad conference.
Click to expand...






And where would you suggest we go? Seriously I'd like to know the answer to this. Outside of the big sky out west where would we ever be able to fit in? the Mountain West sure as hell ain't going to take us so where else are we going to go?

garthalgar.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top